The Preliminary Showing on the Factors of Preliminary Injunction in Trademark Infringement Cases ─Focusing on American Law after the eBay Case and Taiwan Court Decisions

The Preliminary Showing on the Factors of Preliminary Injunction in Trademark Infringement Cases ─Focusing on American Law after the eBay Case and Taiwan Court Decisions

 

Title
The Preliminary Showing on the Factors of Preliminary Injunction in Trademark Infringement Cases ─Focusing on American Law after the eBay Case and Taiwan Court Decisions
Author
Jr-Da Fan
Keywords
Injunction, Trademark, Infringement, Irreparable Harm,
Goodwill
Abstract
In eBay v. MercExchange (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts
must apply the traditional four-factor test for injunctive relief in every case. These
“principles of equity” required courts to employ the traditional four-factor test under
which the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success of the merits;
(2) the existence of irreparable harm; (3) that the balance of hardships tilts in favor
of injunctive relief; and (4) that granting an injunction would not harm the public
interest. But when assessing whether a particular instance of trademark infringement
resulted in “irreparable harm” U.S. federal courts almost uniformly presumed
such irreparable harm upon a finding of likelihood of confusion. In fact, the eBay rules should not be used to eviscerate the normal presumption of irreparable harm
that attaches upon a showing of liability in trademark cases. In our country when
granting or denying preliminary injunction of trademark infringement cases, the
plaintiff often provides a preliminary showing with regard to the existence of legal
relation and trademark infringement documentary evidence, not actively providing
the existence of irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships tilts in favor of
injunctive relief and that an injunction is in the public interest. The court reviewing
an application for preliminary injunction deliberates on the likelihood of success on
the merits as the most important consideration. Compared with patent and
copyright cases of the discretion of the preliminary injunction, the court mainly
deliberates on the likelihood of success and the existence of irreparable harm as the
most important factor. It is clear intellectual property cases, especially trademark
cases on the set of preliminary injunction claim, do not require the plaintiff to take
the burden of all factors of trial discretion in Taiwan. Because these harms to
producers and consumers stemming from a likelihood of consumer confusion are
not merely monetary in nature, they are reputational and difficult to quantify. The
plaintiff does not need to spend additional resources to prove that other factors
other than “a likelihood of success on the merits”.
Abstract Article

7 Downloads

12 Downloads

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *